Are Armenia And Belarus Wandering Westward?

The New Cold War, despite only ‘ officially ’ being a little over a year old, has already seen its fair share of dynamic developments, some of which had been totally unexpected. These include the Ukrainian Civil War, the sanctions war , the death of South Stream and birth of Turkish (and perhaps Balkan ) Stream, the US’ flipping of Cuba , and failed American threats against Vietnam, to name some of the most newsworthy. Given all the action that’s unfolded in such a short period of time, it’s likely that the momentum will continue and more dramatic surprises will certainly await. Two of the most shocking events that could possibly happen by the end of the year would be the defection of Armenia and Belarus to the West and away from Russia. While it may sound like the realm of political fantasy to some, a closer examination of key statements and developments reveals that it’s uncomfortably not as far-fetched as one would initially like to think.

Part I of the analysis will begin by explaining American grand strategy in the context of the New Cold War, followed by an assessment of its outreaches to both Armenia and Belarus. Part II then continues by examining what kind of perceived benefits the West is dangling in front of Yerevan and Minsk in order to tempt their leaders into becoming the “Eurasian Sadat(s)”. Finally, the series concludes with a brief description of the disastrous consequences that an Armenian and/or Belarusian foreign policy pivot would have for Russia.

US Grand Strategy

The US is reviving two concepts from the last century in an effort to promote its quest for unilateral dominance in the current one, hoping that the combined interplay of both resurrected strategic doctrines will weaken and eventually dismember the Russian Federation:

The Asymmetrical Neo-Barbarossa:

The US has structurally commenced a North-to-South offensive against Russia on geographic par with the one that was initiated by the Nazis in World War II, the pivotal difference being that it remains asymmetrical and has yet (key word) to transition into conventional, direct aggression. Washington is capitalizing off of a mix of interrelated advantageous factors such as the Soviet dissolution, NATO expansion, and EU enlargement. Here’s what it looks like in detail, moving from North to South along Russia’s Western flank:

* North

The states of Greater Scandinavia have recently formed the Viking Bloc , the northernmost component of NATO’s new strategy of regional fighting blocs . This sub-regional military organization is meant to aggressively confront Russia in both the Arctic and Baltic, behaving overly assertive due to their knowledge that the US’ nuclear umbrella covers most of their members.

* West

Everyone is already familiar with the Ukrainian Civil War and the causes behind it so there’s no need to redundantly describe it, but what’s less known is the formation of a Commonwealth Bloc between Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine. These three states, two of which are NATO’s most anti-Russian members, are coalescing together over the historical lands of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and providing backdoor Shadow NATO membership to Kiev (which for its part, now officially wants to join the bloc).

* Southwest

US aims in this region include the expansion of destabilizing ‘ missile defense ’ installations in Romania (which might one day be outfitted with offensive missiles to target Crimea) and the agitation of the Transnistria conflict in Moldova. Furthermore, since Romania is a littoral Black Sea state, the expansion of its naval capability under American stewardship could present a tantalizing workaround for circumventing the Montreaux Convention ’s limitations on out-of-regional warships (read: American) in the Black Sea. The ideal end game for the US is to create a Black Sea Bloc centered on Romania and including Bulgaria, Moldova, and perhaps even Georgia to create complications for Russian policy in the region.

* South

Georgia’s steady march towards NATO is alarming to Russian policy makers, and the intensification of the country’s Shadow NATO integration poses serious headaches for the already convoluted Caucasus. Just like Romania, Georgia by itself poses no significant threat to Russia’s interests, but when it takes on the role of regional node in a larger, coordinated North-South strategic offensive against Russia, that’s when the real problems for Moscow begin.

* EU-NATO Convergence

As icing on the cake, both Brussels-based organizations have an overlap of geopolitical interest in the Neo-Barbarossa, focusing intensely on Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. Each of these states has signed their own Association Agreement with the EU, and per the so-called “ Ukraine Freedom Support Act ” signed last December, the US also recognizes all three of them as major non-NATO allies . Thus, one can see a clear pattern of the EU’s Eastern Partnership evolving from an economic battering ram into a military one for use against the Russian Federation’s interests.

The Neo-Reagan Doctrine:

As the author wrote about in a previous article focusing on Central Asia, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a 21st-century modification of the Reagan Doctrine in order to disrupt Russia’s post-Soviet integration plans. Clinton had threatened to destroy the Eurasian Union back in December 2012, one year before EuroMaidan broke out in Kiev, when she warned that:

“There is a move to re-Sovietise the region, It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, but let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.”

As the author remarked at the time, “This is none other than a 21st-century application of the Reagan Doctrine, whereby the US will now seek to aggressively roll back Russian influence in the Near Abroad instead of Soviet influence across the world”, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia through the EU’s Eastern Partnership program. While the specific template of the Neo-Reagan Doctrine can of course be adapted and improvised for forthcoming circumstances, thus far it appears as though the Eastern Partnership will continue to lead the way in destabilization along Russia’s Western reaches, which will be described more fully in the following sections. Still, the importance of this subsection lies in educating the reader about the US’ formal plan to disrupt Russian-led post-Soviet integration processes, which is essentially one of the main themes of the New Cold War.

Progress On The Front

Since the West’s grand strategic context against Russia has been clearly established, one can now better understand the specifics of the progress they’ve made in Armenia and Belarus. Here’s what’s happened on both fronts:

Angling For Armenia:

The West is eager to poach Armenia out of Moscow’s sphere of influence, taking advantage of the vulnerable geographic fact that its territory is not contiguous to Russia or any of its official Eurasian Union or CSTO allies. The aim is to dislodge the last bastion of influence that Russia holds in the strategic South Caucasus, which is its military base in Gyumri and the CSTO relationship it has with Armenia. There are three methods in which the West is going about its goal, and they are as follows:

* Genocide Politics

Western representatives and commentators recently shed crocodile tears for the Armenians in commemorating the centennial of their genocide, seeking to exploit the sorrow and emotions emanating from this historical wound for their own geopolitical advantage. The genocide remembrance has become a part of the Armenian national identity, and accordingly, foreign recognition of such weighs disproportionately to other factors in Armenians’ political calculations, equal in national significance to perhaps only Nagorno-Karabakh.

The flood of Western grassroots support in recognizing this tragic historical event as genocide may have disarmed Armenian decision makers into believing that those states’ political representatives also honestly support the Armenian people, which shouldn’t automatically be the assumed case. While no one doubts the sincerity of grassroots activists and supporters, one would be naïve to not do so when it comes to Western political leaders, be they national leaders or elected members of parliament, some of whom grasp the geostrategic nature of cultivating closer ties with Yerevan in the context of the New Cold War.

* Nuland Intrigue And The Washington Visit

Troublemaker and regional nuisance Victoria Nuland visited the Caucasus in February to meet with the region’s leaders, including Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan. During her stay in the Armenian capital, she also visited the Armenian Genocide Memorial, thereby hinting at implicit recognition of this event even if it’s not formally acknowledged by the US government for political reasons as regards its relationship with Turkey. It doesn’t matter whether the US really believes it was genocide or not – what’s important in this context is that the impression was conveyed upon the Armenian President that the Americans are on the right side of history and can thereby be trusted.

It’s not known what the two discussed during their meeting, but Nuland’s ploy seemed to have worked since Sargsyan visited Washington at the beginning of May and actually flew straight from the American capital to Moscow in order to attend the Victory Day celebrations. Given the rock-bottom relations between Washington and Moscow, and especially in the context of the “ War on Victory Day ” that the West is currently waging, it’s inappropriate at best and treacherous at worst for Sargysan to have been cavorting with Congress on the eve of such an historic and sensitive commemoration (and one that the US has been speaking out against).

* Another Shot At The Association Agreement

Putting all speculation of Armenia’s shifting allegiances to an end, the country’s Foreign Minister officially declared that his country hopes to discuss a new EU Association Agreement during the upcoming Eastern Partnership summit at the end of the month. While thus far it appears to only be political in nature, there’s no guarantee that it won’t contain any economic caveats or eventually transition its authority over into that sphere. The geopolitical significance of Armenia’s Westward progression cannot be underestimated in any regard, nor should the distinct possibility that it can evolve into formalized economic relations between Yerevan and Brussels. One should immediately recall that the incompatibility of the EU and Eurasian Union’s economic arrangements was at the core of the Ukrainian Crisis, since Moscow was and still is adamantly against Ukraine ever becoming a backdoor for an unregulated de-facto free trade area with the EU, and the same logic holds for Armenia and other countries as well.

In all actuality, the prospects of Armenia fulfilling the long-warned-about Ukrainian stealth role may even be more disastrously impactful than that of Ukraine doing so itself, since Kiev isn’t partner to the Eurasian Union like Yerevan is. The idiom about the “weakest link” may turn out to be true in the geopolitical sense, since it’s bitterly ironic that the smallest and weakest member of the Eurasian Union may end up being its true Achilles ’ heel (at least until Kyrgyzstan joins and confronts a likely Color Revolution later on in October).

Belarusian Backtracking:

Belarus seems to be no better than Armenia when it comes to backtracking on its commitment to Eurasian integration, since President Lukashenko is engaging in an unnecessary high-risk balancing act in order to legitimize his government in the eyes of the West. The governing structure in the country is peculiar in the sense that it’s largely dependent on the whims of the man in charge, thus making it a personality-driven system that’s vulnerable to flattery and direct diplomacy. Belarus’ center-stage diplomatic role in hosting the Minsk Talks seems to have gotten to Lukashenko’s head , and the de-facto acceptance of his government by Germany and France (evidenced by Merkel and Hollande’s globally publicized visits to the country) may have made him think that he’s now “one of the club”, or perhaps, even a prestigious member.

Lukashenko has always tried to balance between the West and Russia while retaining a preference for the sovereignty that Moscow allows him in handling his country’s domestic affairs, but he may now be involving himself in matters above his head and beyond his control. It’s unknown whether he can continue to successfully enact his balancing policy under the overly intense pressures of the New Cold War, and it may be that the application of his old “balancing tricks” ( milk and energy disputes with Russia, customs crises , strong ‘ independent ’ politicalrhetoric , etc.) might cumulatively add up to create situations where he can’t extricate himself from without dealing irreparable damage to his relations with Russia. Here are Belarus’ latest moves and statements from Lukashenko that make one wonder whether he’s already made his choice in turning towards the West:

* Complicity In Breaking The Counter-Sanctions

Belarus has been the base that counter-sanctioned EU countries have been using to evade Moscow’s legislation and illegally sell their goods on the Russian market. This breach of trust between close partners underscores the self-interested nature of the Belarusian leadership in advancing its own profit at the expense of its allies, thereby raising questions about its overall reliance in other commitments as well. If the West ever offered Belarus a ‘better’ economic deal than the one its already signed with Russia, would Lukashenko abandon his ally and take it, or would he remain as loyal to Russia as Syrian President Assad has been to Iran when the Gulf States offered him their ownpipeline deal ? After all, the Belarusian President spoke about the future possibility of leaving the Eurasian Union when the newly founded organization was only a couple of weeks old, demonstrating that he’s already weighing his options in the event that another opportunity more to his liking presents itself one day.

* The Francis Flip

Pope Francis played a primary role in brokering the Raul Castro-Obama deal on Cuba’s capitulation , and if he gets to mediate relations between Belarus and the EU, as the Vatican has recently offered to do, then a similar capitulation can also be expected. Catholic Poland, whose compatriots comprise a very small but politically agitated minority in Belarus, has ambitions of restoring its hegemony over the lands of its former Commonwealth, and it aspires to use identity warfare and the support of the Vatican in bringing this about. Warsaw already hosts the anti-government Belarussian House and other groups that are dedicated to regime change (of which Warsaw has directly been accused of conspiring to carry out), and in the interests of aggressive papal proselytization in historically Orthodox lands, it’ll doubtless team up with the Vatican in attempting to bring Belarus under its boots. The intervention of Francis in trying to ‘improve’ ties between the EU and Belarus is just soft power cover in giving Lukashenko a ‘face-saving’ way to surrender if he so chooses.

* Washington In Minsk

Some observers such as Daniel McAdams at the Ron Paul Institute of Peace and Prosperity believe that the key characteristic of the Minsk Talks was that the US wasn’t involved in the format, hence why it’s ultimately still in effect today (no matter how imperfect), but if one asked Lukashenko, he’d strongly disagree. He recently spoke favorably about the US possibly getting involved in the format, which would completely upset the diplomatic balance that’s been carefully constructed thus far.

In fact, Lukashenko is so adamant about bringing Washington to Minsk that he even wants to normalize relations with the US , which would lead to an expected influx of American diplomatic and NGO personnel that might be tempted to provoke a repeat of the Ukrainian scenario if Belarus ever stepped out of line afterwards. It would also create an oddly uncomfortable situation if Belarus, Russia’s CSTO and Eurasian Union partner, gained a clean slate of pristine relations with the US at the same time that Moscow and Washington are battling it out in the New Cold War. Such an occurrence would surely raise concern in the corridors of the Duma and lead to a lot of second-guessing about Belarus’ geopolitical loyalty.

* Rethinking The Belarussian-EU Relationship

The Belarusian Foreign Minister was quoted at the beginning of this month speaking about the necessity of normalizing relations with the EU, and considering the inroads that both sides have made with one another over the past year, such a move can’t be discounted. As with the criticism of Lukashenko’s suggestion that the same be made with the US, it would be inappropriate for Belarus to normalize ties with the EU while its Russian ally (if it can even be called so at that point) is engaged in New Cold War rivalry with Brussels, including a sanctions war that Minsk has repeatedly undermined for its own profit. Lukashenko’s initiative to simultaneously move closer to the US and EU at the height of their asymmetrical hostilities against Russia portends negatively for its faithfulness to Moscow-led Eurasian integration processes.

PART II: Are Armenia And Belarus Wandering Westward?

(It’s recommended that the reader review Part I in order to place everything into the appropriate context that is necessary for understanding the final part of this series.)

Win-Win Or Win-Lose?

Yerevan and Minsk are under the false impression that siding with the West in the New Cold War against Russia might be a win-win scenario considering the benefits that are being dangled in front of them, however, this are actually a carefully crafted misperception designed to entice and mislead their leaders into making a major mistake. While the short-term ‘benefits’ may appear to be shared, the only long-term beneficiary would be the West, which would gain valuable geostrategic advantages from its unwitting Armenian and Belarusian benefactors.

Armenia:

The core of each country’s temptation comes down to establishing what they believe to be economic relations with the West that would be more profitable than the currently existing arrangement with Russia. Armenia is the poorest country in its region due to its size, geography, and the over-two-decades-long Turkish blockade , and there’s simmering discontent against the current authorities that could possibly be corralled into Color Revolutionary social infrastructure. Sargsyan just signed the first-ever Trade and Investment Framework Agreement between Armenia and the US during his visit to Washington, showing that he’s eager to expand his country’s economic relations with non-Eurasian Union states instead of intensify the ties it already has with its formal partners like Russia.

Armenia’s leadership also believes that the West truly supports it in its international genocide recognition campaign, as was explained in Part I, and it believes that they can enact pressure on Turkey in this regard. Furthermore, since Sargsyan is now convinced that the West is on its side in the genocide debate, he also may feel that they can exert influence over Ankara in getting it to lift the blockade against Armenia. It’s obvious that Turkey would never comply with any external pressure on this topic, especially if it were presented in the form of ultimatum adjustments needed for it to join the EU. The West might perhaps tease such an initiative as a means of threatening Ankara for any further pivot towards Eurasia, but they obviously wouldn’t believe their own words, and would say such things to strengthen their image vis-à-vis Armenia in anticipation of Yerevan’s final flip. Any Western rhetoric supporting Armenia at the expense of Turkey must thus be seen as purely political and designed to be nothing more than part of a long-term geopolitical attack against Russia.

Armenia’s movement closer to the West is fraught with danger for its domestic stability, since its ‘new partners’’ promising words and supportive statements are purposely intended to raise the population’s hopes unrealistically high, thereby pushing many of them over the edge towards supporting a forthcoming nationalist Color Revolution if the gambit fails (similar in structure to what is being plotted against Iran per the nuclear proto-deal). The extreme nationalist government that likely emerges from the Western-supported coup will follow the template of their Kiev brethren and likely provoke a war with their regional foe, Azerbaijan. As it currently stands, Baku’s military spending and capabilitiesfar outstrip anything that Yerevan can currently field in the near future, meaning that a Continuation War would likely be to the latter’s extreme disadvantage and consequently explaining why Russia would never advise its ally to partake in such a destructive military adventure.

This is why it would take a pro-Western nationalist Color Revolution to radically change the country’s leadership and blind it to these very real dangers involved, which would thus make them disobey their Russian ally’s guidance and launch a war without its approval. Such a scenario is precisely what the West intends to happen, since it wants to see Armenia destroyed by Azerbaijan, knowing full well the negative geostrategic reverberations this would have for Russia’s position in the South Caucasus, as well as for Russian-Azeri relations. Furthermore, since Armenia would be launching their war without Russia’s consent, it’s doubtful that Moscow would do much to assist it, since it would alarmingly sense a Reverse Brzezinski in the making and would likely opt to stay as far away as is reasonably possible so as to mitigate the risks of entrapment (with the Gyumri base practically becoming hostage to the West’s provocative strategy).

Belarus:

Minsk is in a somewhat different position than Yerevan per the economic motivations for its possible anti-Russian pivot. First off, it’s not a ‘Eurasian economic island’ and is contiguous to its partner and largest member economy, Russia. Additionally, it’s nowhere near facing the poverty that afflicts many Armenians, and its population is not as economically desperate for change as its counterparts in the South Caucasus are, thus mitigating the chance of a provoked Color Revolution. In fact, Belarus has a very stable national economy (especially when compared to its European counterparts), thus making it an ideal partner in any economic arrangement, ergo why the EU is interested in it. Lukashenko doesn’t simply want his country to prosper, he also wants to become internationally popular as a result, and since Brussels has been courting his ego lately, he’s becoming more amenable to their influence.

Another thing on Lukashenko’s European ‘wish list’ is to receive “regime reinforcement” (the opposite of regime change), in that his government is finally recognized all throughout the continent as democratic and legitimate (which it is) and no longer as the “ last dictatorship in Europe ”, the notorious American listing which struck straight through his inflated ego. He enjoys a high level of real popular support among his people, hence why the media stereotype of a Color Revolution (i.e. ‘a popular uprising’) is impossible, but Belarus is still vulnerable to Color Revolution 2.0 tactics such as those unveiled in Ukraine. If he doesn’t throw his lot in with the West, he’s afraid that violent street thugs (some of which could even be infiltrated in from Poland and Ukraine) will descend on Minsk the next time there’s an election and attempt to turn the capital into Kiev. Unbeknownst to him, the West will still apply this tactic whether he’s friendly with them or not, as it’s nothing more than a simple tool to them in pressuring second-rate leaders to do their bidding, which is exactly what Lukashenko would become if tries to join their bloc.

Another factor that must be mentioned here is Lukashenko’s personal psychology, since the individual-centric nature of Belarus’ current political system makes this among the most important variables in considering the possibility of an anti-Russian pivot. The Belarusian leader initially had a superiority complex vis-à-vis Russia during the 1990s, when his country was largely spared from the economic and social turmoil over the early post-Soviet period mostly due to his own personal policies. In negotiating the Union State of Russia and Belarus, Lukashenko thought that he could overpower Yeltsin in the proposed arrangement and essential go from being the leader of Belarus to the leader of all of Russia.

The arrival of President Putin on the scene changed all of that, and Lukashenko then acquired an inferiority complex towards Russia and its leader. Simultaneously, he also harbors a deep-seated inferiority complex against the EU that he’s had since he first came to power, and the combination of two such identical complexes against his two primary neighbors explains his sometimes schizophrenic and unjustified “balancing acts”. Given his unstable psychological setup, he’s prime for any personal grooming that makes him feel acknowledged, respected, and powerful, which is exactly what the EU is currently doing, and therefore increasing the possibility that he may fully pivot towards them and against Russia.

Counting The Consequences

Aside from the previously mentioned scenario of a Western-staged Nagorno-Karabakh Continuation War, there are several other serious consequences for Russia if Armenia and/or Belarus pivot to the West. Here’s what Moscow can expect if either of them breaks ranks:

The Eurasian Union Crumbles:

It’s been Russia’s plan all along that the Eurasian Union members would eventually enter into a free trade area with the EU through a bilateral agreement between both blocs, but if Armenia and/or Belarus jump the gun and try to do this on their own, then it would ruin this opportunity for Russia and its associated economic partners. As such, it would deal perhaps the greatest blow to the fledgling economic group that its received thus far and embody the spirit of Hillary Clinton’s Neo-Reagan Doctrine.

The CSTO Cracks:

The movement of Armenia or Belarus closer to the West may foreshadow their self-distancing from the Russian-led CSTO defense apparatus as well, thus initiating a crisis within the organization and raising questions about its overall cohesiveness and solidarity. Historical record from the 1990s and early 2000s clearly indicates that countries pursuing warmer relations with the EU simultaneously did so with NATO, and there’s nothing to suggest that this pattern won’t continue into the future with either of the two potential pivot states.

Geostrategic Vulnerabilities Widen:

Critical sections of Russia’s international security architecture would irrefutably be dismantled if Armenia and/or Belarus sided with the West in the New Cold War, thereby exposing the country to geostrategic vulnerabilities that were unthinkable just a year ago. These changing circumstances can work to tip the strategic balance against Russia and towards the West, possibly even ushering in emboldened asymmetrical offensive operations that could run the risk of leading to the dismemberment of Russia itself, which remains the sought-after ‘final solution’ for Western policy makers.

Concluding Thoughts

The New Cold War can succinctly be described as the efforts of the West to dismantle Russia’s peripheral economic and physical security before striking straight at the core of the targeted state itself. The massive asymmetrical North-South offensive undertaken in the past year reminds one of the infamous Operation Barbarossa that that the Soviet Union had to defend against over 70 years ago, albeit this one has been slowly in the making ever since 1991. The US has more motivation than ever to destabilize the Eurasian Union due to the coordinated integration that it will be pursuing through China’s Silk Road projects, as proudly announced during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Victory Day visit to Moscow.

While it remains possible that Russia can weather the blow of both Armenia and Belarus simultaneously straying from its intimate sphere of influence if it came to that worst-case scenario, it would still seriously destabilize Russia’s interests and offset its strategic balance against the West in two key theaters. Additionally, even if the full-fledged anti-Russian political pivots never reach fruition, the fact that two formerly trusted Russian allies are flirting so intensely with the West puts Moscow on the relative defensive of having to re-secure its partnerships and perhaps even compete for their future loyalty. No matter which way one tries to spin it, Armenia and Belarus’ advances towards the West in the context of the New Cold War surely create complications for Russian foreign policy and have the disturbing and very realistic possibility of devolving into nightmare scenarios for Moscow and the future of the multipolar world.

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

re: “Yerevan and Minsk are under the false impression that siding with the West in the New Cold War against Russia might be a win-win scenario considering the benefits that are being dangled in front of them, however, this are actually a carefully crafted misperception designed to entice and mislead their leaders into making a major mistake.”

Actually, it is more likely that this is all a ploy with Moscow’s support. It is useful to have them look independent. It would also be suicidal for them to move away from Moscow when you consider their vulnerability. Khadaffi and Assad showed how moving to the West can turn out.

Exactly. The West is duplicity itself. In fact, rather like some notorious murderers, the Western elite seem to relish destroying those they tricked into dropping their guard first, with beguiling promises of ‘friendship’. The Western ruling elites only do ‘Master and Servant or Slave’ relations with the global untermenschen. If Armenia and Belarus let their vigilance slip, the Western NGO filth would be over their country like a nasty rash, followed by the Colour Revolution, then ‘Freedom’, ie serfdom and vassalage.

Guest Star, So did Ukraine. The particulars of the EU Association offered made it clear that Ukraine could only lose by embracing it. Some Ukrainians miscalculated their own interest: the oligarchs who were sweet-talked into not supporting intervention to put down the Maidan; segments of the population who were propagandized into thinking it wd mean a rise in living standards, or at least the oppty to get out of Ukraine to get a European job; and Ukrainian Nazis thought that they wd have the long-term running of the country.

“Warsaw already hosts the anti-government Belarussian House and other groups that are dedicated to regime change (of which Warsaw has directly been accused of conspiring to carry out), ”

Most of the Poles in Belarus supports Lukashenko or they are neutral. Those mentioned subversive groups, supported by corrupted goverment in Warsaw, have marginal influence on Polish population in Belarus. Actually, they are in conflict with Polish organisations accepted by Belarus. I could explain it in details, but i don’t know if anyone cares – generally these pro-Western freaks are trying to become anti-Lukashenko opposition and they don’t care about helping Poles in Belarus, which should be their main goal, not medling into internal Belarus politics. They are making only troubles – lot of noise in media, but no action.
Similar situation is in Lithuania, where majority of Poles are prorussian/ support Donbas and they don’t trust Warsaw and their minions.
Problem is Lukashenko himself. He should look at Yanukovych situation and think twice, where even little romance with Western elites ends. I hope he will wake up or will be more careful.

Also, the “a maidan in Minsk” meme is utterly flawed in 3 ways that make Belarus VERY different of Ukraina:
1. there is NO nazi fiefdom in Belarus similar to te Bandarastan in West Ukraine.
2. Belarussian state is NOT shameful of its own history, nor are they falsifying it.
3. Belarussian president and institutions won’t act cowardly: if there is a coup attemps it will be smashed with all the power of the law (even more so after the Kiev exemple)

Actually a “maidan in Minsk” has already been tried just las elections; violence has been tempted. But the police, ministers and all the State inqstitutions did their job and stopped it very quickly. I remember it, the western MSN were all pitifull as they hadn’t had time to spin…

Actually a “maidan in Minsk” is even less likely than in Moscow (where there sadly are strong 5th columns).

The more an individual is driven by greed, egotism, hatred and fear of others and the more they lack human empathy and compassion and a sense of shame and remorse, the more likely they are to worship and seek to serve the Western elites.

Firstly, Andrew, your brilliance is clearly demonstrated in this article. Facts, events, personalities and dynamics that elude others are assembled into a clear construction that anticipates with prescience.

Second, your depiction of what may happen leaves deep unease. I had hoped your conclusion would offer some counter-move suggestions that Russia may take in the course of these possible developments. Perhaps, that is an impossibility, to anticipate Putin and Lavrov’s counter-strategy.

All of what you describe as Washington’s strategy also lies in its strengths. The Hegemon is very good at these moves to seduce and destroy. So, your article is doubly troubling. The probability is strong that we will see real disruption to the development of Eurasia.

The followup question I have is: will Russia be agile enough to counter the US strategy? It often seems that Russia moves slowly. And what would be the nature of such moves?

The other unknown is China. The Chinese have been using wealth to seduce and make gains in this region. Trade deals, infrastructure projects are typical of an expansive China. Will it be enough that Silk Belts and Roads and increased investment and trade arrangements to keep the nations within the EAEU? The formality of connecting EAEU with the New Silk Road development has begun. Shouldn’t that be enticement be enough to hold these two psychologically weak states close?

Congratulations, Andrew, on another very astute presentation. I am certain strategists and policy-makers around the globe will be reading it closely.

It’s hard to build something and easy to destroy. By looking at a map of proposed projects globally one sees many vulnerabilities to exploit.
What I see is a race between the world and the petrobuck, timeline 5 to 10 years. The key is the alternative trade structure which will allow nations to rid themselves of unneeded $’s and send them back to USA. Sure to happen at some point, but for now China needs to quietly make purchases with paper and maximize potential gain (before pulling the plug).
The expected announcement of China’s actual gold reserves could send some tremors. Russia, China, India, Germany and many others are stocking up as quicky as they can to be better positioned for strength in the new basket of currencies.

Perhaps somewhat off topic, but maybe no entirely IMHO: Some of you acute observers have likely picked up on this already. (Haven’t waded through all comments to recent posts.)

The new President-elect of Poland, Andrzej Duda, is married to one of the chosen, Agata Kornhauser. As Eleanor Roosevelt remarked (when Robert Moses and Belle Moskowitz tried to control FDR’s New York on behalf of Al Smith): “… the race has nerves of iron and tentacles of steel”. If not direct control, then by marriage, as with Ann Applebaum, Yevgenia Yezhova , and Polina Molotova.

Reliance on “Strong Men,” rather that multi-party, and multi-idea electoral Democratic Republics is frought with danger. “Strong Men” governments typically sport a weak political culture. It is harder to turn an active and healthy Political Democracy, than to purchase the souls of a handful of corrupt Oligarchs.

‘Democracies’ cannot exist in mass societies of millions. Almost always large numbers are utterly disenfranchised by the results (Harper won 31% of the electorate, Cameron 24%). ‘Democracy’ entrenches adversarialism, social division and often vicious oppositionalism verging on sabotage. The electorate is composed of 50%, by definition, of below median intelligence, and a similar proportion of below median knowledge, compassion, empathy, etc, however you care to measure it. The greatest bastard has the same vote, theoretically, as the noblest saint. And, of course, in capitalist economies, the political parties are owned by the rich and govern for the rich, and the votes of the loser 99% are garnered by appeals to greed, fear and hatred, most such promises turn out to be cynical lies, and debt, inequality and ecological destruction only ever grow and grow.
Far superior I believe is something like the Chinese system, where there is one Party of political power and Government. Anyone can join and rise according to their talents and ambition. The rich may join the Party, but may not suborn or corrupt it. Policy is decided upon, not to balance competing interests, with those of the rich always preferenced, but on utilitarian grounds based on science, logic, rationality and experience. This sort of governing, meritocratic, technocratic elite is vastly superior to one whose eminence depends on wealth, no matter how gained, often hereditarily, and subservience to such money power amongst the political employees. The proof of the superiority of the Chinese system is in the last few decades of Western eclipse and astonishing Chinese ascent, despite relentless Western subversion and sabotage.
China had a head start of course, because their polity resembles their millennial system of rule, with the Party being both the civil service mandarinate, and the Emperor, the Head of State, rolled into one entity. The obvious next stage would be to introduce and strengthen democracy at the only level where it can be meaningful, that of the work-place, the neighbourhood and the local level. Furthermore the absence of political partisanship, hopefully allied to efforts to reduce inequality and incipient class conflicts, would seem to indicate that this local self-regulation could achieve high levels of consensus, and breed social peace and amity. For certain, in contrast, Western capitalist democracy leads only to the ‘War of all against all’.

It’s long overdue that other nations start developing relations with nations suffering under the Anglo American yoke like Mexico,, Quebec, Carribbean states like Jamaica, the Dominacan–not to mention countries within the American prison house of nations like Aztlan (aka “American” southwest), Hawaii, and Native Indian nations like the Lakota Republic.

I have limited understanding of the region, but from what I gather,
Russia has two main problems in the Caucasus:

A-The Islamists problem in the North Caucasus
B-The US backed Southern energy corridor linking the EU through Azerbaijan-Georgia and Turkey to Central Asia.

To counter these problems

1- Control Georgia at any cost, through economic or military means. Russia should push from Ossetia, Abkhazia into Javakheti until the border of Armenia. This will cut the the BTC pipeline and a military land bridge will be established between Russia and Armenia.

2- Armenia should pre-emptively attack Azerbaijan and make Azerbaijanis flee to Russia’s borderland. Russia should carefully settle the refugees in Dagestan and other Sunni dominated territories.This will create a demographic balance between Azerbaijanis who are Shiia and Dagestanis who are Sunnis.

Azerbaijan is a mix of the corruption of the Ukraine with the military strategists of Saudi Arabia. They have wasted a fortune on weapons that are not relevant for their needs, and their latest project to build out-Dubai Dubai with an Azerbaijan Complex Tower should get going about the time the country implodes. They have seriously declining revenues, and, like their spiritual brothers in the Gulf, too many children who need to steal everything. Iran, Russia, and Armenia need to get their plans in motion to decide what territory they want to grab.

Armenia might win big if a war started. However, the issue is Turkey.

Also, it is basically Russian policy to use nukes to protect Armenia. Armenia is absolutely vital for the survival of Russia.

Why would Shias flee to Sunni-dominated areas in Russia when Armenian-Iranian relations are actually pretty positive?
If Armenia were to attack, it would just be to reunite Azerbaijan back with Iran, possibly leaving a “born failed” buffer republic between Iran and Russia.

But “control” Georgia is ingenious… it would allow Moscow to fight, openly, with an already established “bad guy”. It would also allow Moscow to hide where the bodies are coming from concerning Ukraine, and eliminate the 1000 euro “reward” for rural villagers all across Russia when they document fresh military graves for media uses.

Jean Claude, I think Russia’s use of illicit military force simply drives observer nations straight into the arms of US/NATO for protection. An extremely strong argument in Russia’s favor is that she is for a lawful, multipolar international order.

Thank you again for your piece. I think it gives a worst case scenario based on the US view/stratergy.

Personally, I think Russia and its Government are well aware of what is going on. Armenia and Belarus should just look to Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia to see what a disaster the EU/US pivot can be. The future is East and they are being given a great opportunity to be at the fore front and start of something great.

The US and EU don’t pay up (look at Ukraine) they only take and destroy and are only interested in controlling countries and having bases. The EU/US want Armenia so they can pass their oil pipeline through its territory from Azerbaijan. If the Armenians really believe the US/EU cares about its Genocide – then why does their NATO ally Turkey only condemn Russia for visiting Armenia? – what about US and France? I think that says it all about how “serious” the US really is.

I think both countires leaders may be talking to the EU/US but that doesn’t necessarily translate into betraying Russia and its CSTO allies. What is Armenia going to do if Turkey/Azerbaijan join forces or ISIL attacks? – it is vulnerable to ISIL too and must be fully aware of this risk. They may want to keep both sides happy but musn’t underestimate the US cunning once you open the door to them. In regard to Belarus – they can see what is going on with Ukraine and despite wanting to improve relations with the EU, I don’t think from a security/financial view point it can afford to betray Russia. China went and signed some major deals recently with Belarus. Maybe they are going to be the conduit with the EU for the Silk Road.

At the end of the day they may both be playing the keep your friends close and your enemies closer game…….

I think we underestimate greatly the fear these weaker states have of the U.S “stick” and place too much emphasis on the apeal of the “carrots” (CSTO or EU) promises. The very protracted nature of the terror and carnage being visited on the Middle East and Ukraine, combined with the relatively inexpensive way in which the Americans are executing this strategy, is all the reason any sane state that’s potentially in the hegemon’s crosshairs needs to reconsider its traditional alliances. Think about it, would you rather defy the hegemon, and count of Russia and China’s protection, resulting in a best case scenario like Syria, or hedge your bets, and hope the lesser evil of Russia’s vengeance takes a smaller chunk of your territory like Donbass or PMR. There’s life beyond frozen conflicts (Moldova/ Georgia), hell some states even thrive (the Baltics/ Poland). But there’s no surviving the hegemon even if you win. The pepertual purgatory that Iraq has been condemned to for Sadamms defiance, Syria’s flames that never seem to quench and the million corpses of Vietnam’s brush with the death dealers, represents a pretty potent cautionary tale for all states concerned. It’s like the poor Afghan or Iraqi civilian being forced to choose between the smiling American marine with the freebies and promises of protection, versus the Sunni death squads of Al- Zarqawi back in 2005. Not much of a choice, better to risk the 3rd way and remain neutral in the hopes of salvaging something of value when the storm passes. What use are the gifts of the CSTO to the walking corpse of Syria today? If Russia and China can guarrantee real protection from the terror squads of the hegemon, they’ll find more dependable allies/ vassals in this struggle against the hegemon. Carrots alone just won’t suffice.

“…the relatively inexpensive way in which the Americans are executing this strategy…”
Again and again we come back to this fundamental point. The Zempire has long ago spent its cultural capital and its military has devolved into a purely destructive force.
However, it can destroy at will and for free and it now destroys purely so that it can continue to extract the wealth it needs to stay on life support.
Until and unless its magic money machine is destroyed, it will continue to do so. Smaller states recognize that there is no stopping a military who can attack and destroy at no cost, or even the risk of cost, to itself.

Exactly, Erebus– you said it. If we could get some more truthful media going, we could at least make them pay in lost public opinion. Otherwise, I’ve been asking the same question that you are: How do we make them pay for their incessant aggressions?

When one sees Nuland or any other neocons taking an interest in a region, it is likely that while they may “speak” for the regime they work for (USA in this case), who they actually represent is zionist interests. That’s what neocons do.

There is a great deal of hostility in the Israeli establishment towards Armenia and may even be disappointed the “task” wasn’t finished. This is part of the reason Israel refuses to recognise the genocide of Armenians as genocide (1). Do a web search on Armenian-Israeli relations and one will see what I mean. The first page will be packed with predominantly zionist sources on Armenian anti-semitism. The Israelis regard Armenia as a “problem” that occupies the territory between two of their allies (IE: proxies, or proxies in training). This Israeli media article should show what I’m talking about fairly well.

While Armenia continues to spout anti-Semitic bile, the Azeri government has proven itself to be a trustworthy and important partner for the Jewish state.

Since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the newly independent Azerbaijan in 1991, the relationship has improved consistently. Now 40 percent of the oil consumed in Israel comes from Azerbaijan, a crucial client for Israeli high-tech industries. Meanwhile, the Armenian government has established close relations with the Iranian mullahs.

I’ll stop there, it gets quite rank. The article goes on associating Armenia with the “hated Muslim enemies” and the usual zio-toss they smear their enemies with. And remember, Haaretz is part of the liberal Israeli establishment.(2)

The point being the Israelis consider Armenia to be an enemy and part of the “network of enemies” they face in their near abroad. In all likelihood, the Israelis would like to see Azerbaijan roll into Armenia and remove this part of their “network of enemies”. Just like with their ISIL proxy, who is tasked to remove Israel’s Syrian, Lebanese and Iranian “problems”, before heading north and northeast to convert Central Asia into “Iraq/Afghanistan” for ZPC/NWO geopolitical interests.

So what was Israeli operative Nuland doing in Armenia? Setting up a “color revolution”? Probably. If they can get some xenophobes in power (like the Ukraine) and hop them up enough to create a conflict with Azerbaijan, giving Azerbaijan a legit reason to roll in, all the better. And if there is a second Armenian genocide as a result of this, no biggie to the zios, Armenians are “evil anti-semites” cavorting with Israel’s enemies.

The NWO wing of the ZPC/NWO would be happy, too, since it would remove a state friendly with Russia and might even lead to something “better”, like Russia intervening (as touched upon in Kroybko’s article) and opening up a new “Afghanistan opportunity” for the ZPC/NWO to weaken Russia in their war to subjugate the Eurasian Alliance.

(1) Other reasons include Israeli-Turkish relations and a reticence to use the term genocide for any other genocide other than the Holocaust genocide for the psychological reason it could lessen the impact of the “Holocaust religion” as part of the zionist influence machinery. This zionist influence in their own political establishments is also partly why the USA and UK still refuse to recognise the Armenian Genocide as genocide.

(2) Haaretz is similar to the Guardian and the New York Times in bent and is propaganda directed at similar audience shares in their respective countries.

Here is a list of countries who recognise Armenian genocide and it is so confusing. That’s why I would like to ask some questions for the sake of clarification about Armenian genocide recognition? Why doesn’t Iran recognise Armenian genocide, are they in cahoots with Zionists? Also why doesn’t anti Zionist Erdogan recognise Armenian genocide? Or may be it has nothing to do with Zionism at all?

Note to others. This is a slight variation on Benjamin’s previous strawman trolling (he abstained from the overt personal attack this time) here:

Yet you stated before that “zionazi” appeared in the 19 century. Your obsession with Zionism makes you to make funny guffs.

He and his “friends” then carried on that particular troll for several more posts after that. What Benjamin is doing is taking a phrase, misrepresenting the context or the meaning to basically harass the person who wrote it. IE: strawman trolling. The idea is to get an argument going about the strawman nonsense and derail the discussion into a food fight. It’s a standard part of the websayanim toolkit. His selection of “zionism” to run the strawman on shows what got under his skin and where he is coming from.

Before the 24 May post, Benjamin only rarely posted here, after that post, he’s now all over the site. And by a strange coincidence, this coincides with the murder of Mozgovoi and concurrent increase of trolls hitting this site, as well.

You may appreciate Wayne Madsen’s history of the Dönmeh, a tribe of Sephardic Jews who settled in Turkey and rose to great power. They were essentially the Young Turks who massacred the Armenians. There seems to be quite an internal struggle in Turkey that’s been going on for some time.

A quote: It is believed by some historians of the Armenian genocide that the Armenians, known as good businessmen, were targeted by the business-savvy Dönmeh because they were considered to be commercial competitors.

I first saw mention of the doenmeh in an article in a New York Jewish magazine, where a Jew was telling a friend, another Jew, that Kemal Ataturk was Jewish. His friend thought that he’d lost the plot, but the author informed him that Ataturk was a doenmeh, or crypto-Jew, a descendant of followers of Sabbitai Zevi, the false Messiah, who was forced to convert to Islam, but whose followers kept their Judaic faith intact but secret. Other doenmeh apparently include the founder of the evil death-cult Wahhabism, ibn-Wahhab, and the founder of the equally evil Saud Mafia family. The Sauds, apparently, often address their Israeli allies as ‘cousins’. And the Jews do seem to have hated the Armenians with their trade-mark ferocity, since time immemorial. No doubt the Armenians were business rivals, or perhaps they are another species of Amalek.

Then again comes to my mind the importance of Russia and China cooperating in every aspect but specially economic (from China) and military (from Russia), their mutual survival depends on that. If they succeed in doing this, it does not matter what countries join or leave. They are good enough as a main core. I am sure no other country would there to attack them. Then the importance of both of them to decouple from the dollar system since is the main subject at stake I think. Therefore this attacks from the empire.

This reminds me of the very thick book Shogun by James Clavell with all its intrigue between the antagonists via allies and vassals. After approximately 999 pages of maneuvering, skirmishes and some spice (Putin’s bedroom antics, Nemtsov’s yummy Ukrainian girlfriend) the battle is finally joined and concluded in about 3 lines.

What I remember about the book is that allies are not desirable, vassals are preferred. Allies can stand with one leg in each opposing camp and then get kicked in their balls. Its much easier to just become a vassal, then you either live or die depending on which camp you chose, which is much preferable than leaving your balls exposed.

Belarus, Armenia, etc, should forget about their independence and just join Russia. Become vassals, like Chechnya. No one looks for trouble in Chechnya, the resilience of their soldiers is world renowned, unlike in Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, etc.

Chechnya is an unstable dictatorship with a vast PR effort completely mistating the economic, social and identity realities. When dictators or even strong democratic leaders (De Gaulle) go, chaos ensues. Democracy is really bad. The trouble is the alternatives are worse.

Cuba got wat she was struggling for for years (the coming back home of all the remaining “cuban five” heros). Cuba also even isolated the United States in its own continent, even forcing US president to an humiliating retreat in no less than the OAS (the “ministry of colonies” as it used to be).

The USA got nothing (NOTHING) in return (other than some swpin in western MSM).

Yet, it is “Cuba’s capitulation”…
I’m sorry, but after a so big error on a subject I know quite well, I’m inclined to think all the rest of the analysis is of the same vein.
The fact that, like the “Cuba’s capitulation” meme all the “facts” presented in the article are spining in the same direction, which incidentally is the same as the western MSN, makes me even less prone to believe it.

I also doubt that Lukashenko is as stupid as the article puts it.
After all he managed to defeat (and fully defeat and crush) a coloured reolution. He has a very wide and strong popular backing. His country is doing quite well both economically and socially. There are strong military ties with Russia.
Yet we should believe that he is gullible and his greatest dream is to have a parking lot in Brussels.
How ridiculous can that be?

Belaruss is actually the ONLY country in Europe that the Empire has never been able to control. They tried of course, but they got their Putin a decade earlier than Russia. That is, a lot of the destruction of the economic, social and militar tissue that happened in Russia didn’t happen in Belarus. And even more importantly, the deep infiltration of “liberals” was stopped at a much earlier stage.

Exactly.
On Cuba–the leadership of Cuba have always been classy. Of course they’re willing to establish diplomatic ties; Latin American leftists are generally willing to talk to their opponents, and even talk as if there’s some doubt to give the benefit of. People used to the way American “diplomacy” is done tend to imagine this is a sign of weakness or surrender.
And sure, they’d like to see the embargo end. But I’ve yet to see anyone point to a concession they’ve made, and I doubt I will see it. They’ll talk forever, but Raul Castro has been dealing with American politicos and diplomats for decades, he’s not about to get fooled by someone wet behind the ears like Obama.

As to Lukashenko, amid the collapse of the USSR states and Russia, the chaos of shock therapy, the failure of nerve that saw everyone capitulate to the belief that American free markets were destiny, Lukashenko was the only man in the whole region to hold together a social democratic state, with controls on the markets, some state ownership of industry, and a refusal to let the Europeans buy up and liquidate said industry. While every other nation in the area was deindustrializing and disintegrating and Europe was going neoliberal, Lukashenko hung tough and maintained Belarus as a relatively independent, prosperous going concern.

And now we’re to assume, based on a bit of pleasant diplomatic-speak vis-a-vis the EU, that Lukashenko’s a patsy all of a sudden? Doesn’t ring true.

He’s got an ego. All tall leaders think they are nature’s choice. However, a clever man in his realm also knows not to leave his realm. Putin is orders of magnitude smarter and this guy knows it. He saw Putin in action right in his own palace manhandle Merkel and Hollande, treat Porky like a child up past his bedtime and then deliver a document that finishes the Western project in Ukraine. A few days later, he saw Putin take it to the UNSC and have it made into International handcuffs on Kiev.

He may dream of full independence but he serves the Kremlin when they call.
Actually, China has hooked him on their drug (investment and trade) and he will do incredibly well with Eurasia and the New Silk Road.

Nuland and the whores of the West will come polish his apple, but his future is written with the East.

IMHO this ego thing is completely misplaced. What Lukashenko has proved in the last 25 years is that he is a wise leader and he can maintain a national consent. And this consent is most important, and in this, his ego is a minuscule part. Actually I don’t think “Putin is orders of magnitude smarter and this guy knows it.” Putin is clearly no more than a head of a group of national oligarchs, and this means he is also a victim of them. This tremendously limits his actual potential. Remember, the whole Donbass thing could’ve been over a year ago. Russia could’ve crushed the Uki army the first time it used artillery agains the cities. A real Greater Novorossia could’ve been formed from Odessa to Harkov, with people friendly to Russia, and without the destruction brought upon. All the arguments against this still make no sense.

What depends most on Armenia continuing to move towards the west will be how Washington handles Iran. If world markets open up for Iranian goods, one could be certain that Armenia would take advantage of better markets by moving goods cheaply through Iran and Iranian ports, rather than the trouble with Georgia, or the corruption and political tide that changes regarding Turkey.

A chance for a “last grab” by the last two generations of the USSR would be welcomed with open arms, as the bribes and other corruption in really opening up markets and further development of their economy are not going to be trivial.

As Iran goes, Armenia will go also. Despite the rhetoric from the Iranian mullahs, it’s pretty clear by the way talks with Teheran have been going, it looks like Iran is ready to become Uncle Sam’s bitch again, as Israel and Saudi Arabia seem to be getting “kicked out of bed” lately.

Despite the rhetoric from the Iranian mullahs, it’s pretty clear by the way talks with Teheran have been going, it looks like Iran is ready to become Uncle Sam’s bitch again, as Israel and Saudi Arabia seem to be getting “kicked out of bed” lately.

Interesting link.
(The same day, Washington and Teheran will share the wider Near East between themselves, in a sort of Sykes-Picot agreement, or regional Yalta)

When the US leave the area, Iraq (apart from the US oilfields), Syria and Yemen will be controlled by ISIS/Al Qaeda which will take those countries out of Iran’s sphere of influence (or that seems to be the plan).

Shed, It appears to me that Iran has caved in to most of US demands w/o getting much in return. Here’s one article w excerpts:

5/5/2015 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41772.htm After Iran’s investing $40 to $200 billion in its nuclear energy infrastructure, suffering assassinations of 5 nuclear scientists, and undergoing a covert war which sabotaged its nuclear facilities,iii the clerics in Tehran have tentatively accepted to comply with the US demands. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had said earlier, he would tactically make a heroic retreat (narmesh ghahramananeh) to see how the US would respond. But his retreat happened to be fatal as he was forced to remove his redlines and agree to effectively dismantling all important elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Moreover, Iran will suffer further costs of de-installation, storage, and other heavy outlays later on.

The proposed agreement is under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which means if Iran does not abide by the UNSC resolutions, military force can be used against it under Article 42 of the Charter. By linking the agreement to Chapter VII, Iran is fallen to a trap of having admitted that it wanted to build nuclear weapons and thus prepares the ground for future military attacks on a pre-text of non-compliance.

It’s hard to take seriously someone who starts by offhandedly alleging that Cuba, by virtue of re-establishing diplomatic relations, has “flipped” to the USA, and links to an article which makes that claim but doesn’t seem to mention any actual evidence. If that’s his standard, how much credence can I give to his analysis in general?
This seems . . . excitable.

Excellent Article Saker. Here it’s much better than being at Stratfor with their stinking garbage articles. One thing to note, Russia should also take personal responsibility if either Belarus or Armenia fall, you can not just blame the west for her machinations. Armenia was loyal to Russia, until Russia back-stabbed Armenia and sold Azerbaijan super-advanced weapons. It might be a really wise thing for Putin to visit Armenia on the Genocide day, but this is only a historical emotional support. If you do this, and then you go and sell powerful weapons to Armenia’s enemy, that’s an existential threat. Maybe Armenian’s starting telling themselves “who’s fooled by that visit”?
We understand Russia’s armed industries might be in dire straits, and some might say “if russia didn’t sell then someone else would sell”, again, such betrayals don’t easily get forgotten.
Or maybe Russian’s came to the conclusion that Armenia wasn’t so important, or that they could start flirting with armenia’s existential enemies for some profits. How would russia react if Armenia produced super powerful weapons and they sold it to Ukraine right now? Russia is also playing double games, and on the double.

South/Central America is the soft underbelly of the Zempire. Both Russia and China are there making deals, however, I don’t know how this can be a “solution”. Russia & China are nibbling away at the Zempire, but they’re playing the long game.
They know they (actually China) have their hands on the lynch pin in the Zempire’s power mill. Until and unless the Zempire endangers the whole world, they won’t pull it because it means financial and geopolitical chaos for years, possibly decades with unpredictable results. Instead, piece by piece they’re putting together the puzzle that will emerge as the new paradigm when the Zempire finally implodes. The Zempire retains enormous persuasive power, so inevitably, some pieces will be lost. Unlucky leadership, unlucky history.
It is critical for Russia and China, and for the rest of the world that the paradigm is sufficiently robust to withstand the shock when implosion finally visits. Until then they’ll avoid confrontation, speak softly and carry big cheques.
They are absolutely right to do so.

However, I wd feel more confident if I could see the beginnings of decentralization of the global economic system. Don’t know if you’re familiar w Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

Affirms the power of sovereign States to spend first for the benefit of the private sector (but not the super elites) with almost no limits: that is, full employment, full welfare and big control of the economy as a whole. The super elites hate this, and that’s why you have never heard of MMT in the corporate media.

Russia slow? slow to mount yeh,bloody quick to ride, L445 ?
As long as USSA pre-selects presidents,we know who is pulling the strings.same old Ziocons.This gives a wonderful long tail/tale of their consistent failures to take comfort from.You know the list,they literally *can’t* win squat.
And as the EE like to erect the mid finger to democracy, I now know why they call it
the US spelled *color* revolution.short for for *colorectal*,ie spin baby,spin. Here’s hoping they get the *color* examination themselves shortly.
As long as our ally generals have the quality of VVP and Lavrov and their chosen people,Europe may have a chance to survive the nazi/gmo onslaught.

sheldon adelson backs clintoon and the damn koch brothers back good old boy jeb bush the other retarded son of bush senior both zionists Also both groups want iran bombed and are dropping 500 million for the campaigns. Is that what democrapcy looks like? two groups on non americans selecting the presidents?

Wow. Andrew, this is a tremendously informative article. I knew very little of this. I like your style of “These are the pressures and intentions going on.” It’s so much better than just predicting what the outcome will be. Thanks a lot.

1. So, the main reason for Armenian’s discontent is poverty.
Solution : Russia needs apply means to improve economic situation in Armenia . It doesn’t have to be radical changes fast, just infusion of hope into the population seeing that things are improving ( constant reminders of the improvements no matter how small via the media etc. will help ) .

2. Belarussian Lukashenko is replaceable if the security apparatus there is strongly pro-Russian ( which it seems to be , or is it? ), in case he starts getting out of line too much to the point of becoming a threat to the Russian World/Peace.
There are also alarming news coming that unlike Lukashenko who seems not ready to break up with Russia , Belorussian ministry of foreign affairs and related crowd are disturbingly pro-EU to the point of (almost) running such a policy independently of Lukashenko and even in spite of him.
As for potential of the hired Emperial terrorists descending on Minsk ,Maidan style, after seeing the ruinous example of Ukraine it seems likely such an attempt will be violently suppressed with support and approval of majority of Belorussians.

(a) Disqus is insecure: comments go through their server and make a user identifiable across every site they use it on (b) we have a spam filter which works well (c) if you mean trolls, we don’t censor opposing views, unless it becomes obvious they are refusing to be educated

A radical solution to a number of Caucasus problems would be, in case of a nationalist regime in Armenia engaging in war with Azerbaijan ( as speculated in the article ) , for Russia side with Armenia , take over Azerbaijan, get rid of the AngloZionist regime in Baku …. or even more radical – to do away with this Ukraine-like artificial “country” by splitting it between Armenia and Iran ( which has territorial claims on some of the current Azeri-held territories ). That would increase and tremendously solidify Armenia’s and Iran’s pro-Russia attitudes for long time to come ( centuries? ).

Armenia will tilt against Azerbaijan. Russia is currently courting Azerbaijan.

Belarus, already with a devalued currency, has a large petrochemical industry. Now the price of oil is down, this is where the money is made. Sending refined petroleum to the EU will make Belarus a fortune. Russia would be perverse to cut off supply as it needs the cash and more importantly is short of refined petroleum products of its own.

Putin II’s shift to an imperialist foreign policy in the Near Abroad is crashing around his ears. He is not going to get the liberals back on side. He has lost GUAM, is losing Iran (SCO is momentuum) and never had Turkey which doesn’t want Constantinople to be a Russian city. And it is Russian money paying for the Chinese train to Kazan.

His defense is to keep Medvedeev as Prime Minister and to let the Orthodox Right carry on with their mess in Novorossiya Minor, otherwise he loses them too. Can the Russian political class split into liberalizers and fascists without a revolution? Will they accept election results? The liberals will. They have no weapons and they respect the people. But the Orthodox? The people have been their cattle for more than 1000 years and they have guns.

“It’s been Russia’s plan all along that the Eurasian Union members would eventually enter into a free trade area with the EU through a bilateral agreement between both blocs”

Τhis plan of Russia will never work. The so called Free trade is a disaster for many countries and it only helps multinational corporations. Russia will flood with imports from multinational corporations (Made in Asian sweat shops) and the russian producers will be in a great disadvantage.

What Russia needs is more protectionism and building a more self sufficient economy. Otherwise, sooner or later Russia will be forced to capitulate to the “west” and end up a subordinate of EU and USA. There could be no political independence without economic independence.

EU is a essentially a free trade area. Countries such as Greece, Portugal etc with lower productivity levels and a relatively smaller industrial base are in disadvantage. After these countries entered EU, their local industries started to fade away. Their markets flooded with German/dutch/french etc products from major multinational conglomerates. It was impossible for a medium size Greek or Portuguese firm to compete with these powerful corporations. And these countries rapidly de-industrialised during 1980s-2000s and now they rely only in tourism and services, without any economic and political sovereignty. They do not even have a national currency. Monetary policy is controlled by ECB, fiscal policy by EU as well as legislation, trade policy and immigration policy.

The only thing that truly worries ME here is the Vatican factor. They dumped the former German Ratzinger (or something close to that name) and the Old Foxes have put somebody more capable in command of this structure. I also have to say that Orthodoxy IS under attack for the simplest of reasons that it is fundamentally a different form of mentality. Even though I myself attend church once a year I see that most of the clerics are NOT UP TO IT. There are of course shiny examples but are far too few. I am not sure what our world (Orthodox ) is going through, but we are overwhelmed from MATERIALISM which is vacuous and totally fake.
Over the years I saw that the more “money” one has the less he is HUMAN. Being cagey about ones motives comes into their minds of course.
I have come to the conclusion that the Most potent weapon of the WEST is CORRUPTION the very thing that they are so called fighting against. Tantalizing uneducated people, with green papers (dollars that they are backed by Washington’s Military might and the Vatican’s tacit approval) or with shiny objects.
Greece is going through a fundamental change and people are not realizing. It is the moral factor. We are rejuvenating , the question is, are we going to make it in time. TIME WILL TELL.

My comment relates to that part of the article which discusses Armenia’s “wandering” towards the West . I have to disagree with the author on this issue. It is a balancing act dictated by Armenia’s particular conditions in the geopolitics of South Caucasus. As a full member of CSTO and the Russian military base in Gyumri, Armenia covers a pole of its security component, a state which also benefits Russia, to cover its security concerns in the southern dimension. By becoming member in the Eurasian Economic Union, Armenia has chosen to integrate to that space, which is still in its initial phase and the benefits of which will be seen later. By expressing the will to sign an Association Agreement with the EU, it complements the integration component, but making it tailored to Armenia’s needs, it also means that it is subordinated to the Russia-Armenia relations. By opting for further NATO cooperation, it is again a complementary act, since Turkey is a member of that organization, and Armenia’s collaboration tends to neutralize any attempts that Turkey might take to create a negative stance towards Armenia in that organization. By signing a free zone deal with United States, it also intends to complement its economic capabilities. South Caucasus is a complicated geopolitical space, it is burdened by the legacy of history, with still unsettled issues since 1920’s. Therefore any analysis should be careful enough not to reach into fast conclusions.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.